DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE, amendment, and response filed on 05/21/2026.
Claims 1, 14, and 27 have been amended.
Claims 40 and 41 have been added.
Claims 20-26 and 28-39 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1-19, 27, 40 and 41 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 05/21/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 10-19 and 27 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleichauf (USPGP 2020/0007513 A1), hereinafter GLEICHAUF, in view of Navon et al. (USPGP 2023/0186290 A1), hereinafter NAVON, and further in view of Ford (USPGP 2021/0091957 A1), hereinafter FORD.
Claims 1, 14, 27:
GLEICHAUF as shown below discloses the following limitations:
one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to: (see at least Figure 8 as well as associated and related text)
monitor a data capture event stream that comprises electronic data for an asset associated with a property identifier, wherein the property identifier corresponds to a sequence of data that uniquely identifies the asset as compared to one or more other assets; (see at least paragraphs 0002, 0018-0020, 0025, 0037, 0040, 0045, 0063, 0101, 0142)
and wherein the data capture event stream aggregates (i) a first type of electronic data of the electronic data from a first data source associated with a primary system and (ii) a second type of electronic data of the electronic data from a second data source associated with a secondary system; (se at least paragraphs 0025)
commit the candidate data block to a computing node pipeline for incorporation into a distributed ledger in accordance with a distributed ledger consensus protocol based on a comparison between the portion of the electronic data and one or more transaction validation rules, (see at least paragraphs 0018-0020, 0025, 0037, 0040)
wherein the one or more transaction validation rules are configured based on one or more authorizations provided by the primary system and the secondary system; (see at least paragraphs 0024-0025)
trigger one or more actions associated with the asset based on the distributed ledger. (see at least paragraphs 0041, 0076)
GLEICHAUF does not specifically disclose …an event per se. NAVON, however, in at least paragraphs 0025, 0045, 0073, 0080, 0091, and 0151 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of GLEICHAUF with the technique of NAVON because, “A wide variety of content or data in the form of stored signals, such as, for example, text files, images, audio files, video files, web pages, or the like is continually being acquired, identified, located, retrieved, collected, stored, viewed, communicated, etc. by electronic devices, which are becoming more ubiquitous in our increasingly inter-connected world. More recently, there appears to be a number of electronic devices in the market that include firmware and/or software from relatively smaller and/or ephemeral companies still new to the market, quick to create, quick to disappear, many in number. At times, these or like electronic devices are often “orphaned,” such as if artifact originators, such as entities (e.g., vendors, companies, etc.) that have developed firmware and/or software needed and/or useful to maintain and/or operate such devices, for example, go out of business or wither away to such an extent that they no longer have the skills, abilities, desire, etc. to update and/or maintain these devices.” (GLEICHAUF: paragraph 0002) Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
The combination of GLEICHAUF/NAVON does not specifically disclose the following limitations:
in response to a change with respect to the data capture event stream,
process, based on a data processing technique associated with the first type of electronic data or the second type of electronic data, to generate processed electronic data a portion of the electronic data related to the change to generate processed electronic data,
generate a candidate data block based on the processed electronic data;
FORD, however, in at least paragraphs 0110, 0151, and 0153 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of GLEICHAUF/NAVON with the technique of FORD because, “A wide variety of content or data in the form of stored signals, such as, for example, text files, images, audio files, video files, web pages, or the like is continually being acquired, identified, located, retrieved, collected, stored, viewed, communicated, etc. by electronic devices, which are becoming more ubiquitous in our increasingly inter-connected world. More recently, there appears to be a number of electronic devices in the market that include firmware and/or software from relatively smaller and/or ephemeral companies still new to the market, quick to create, quick to disappear, many in number. At times, these or like electronic devices are often “orphaned,” such as if artifact originators, such as entities (e.g., vendors, companies, etc.) that have developed firmware and/or software needed and/or useful to maintain and/or operate such devices, for example, go out of business or wither away to such an extent that they no longer have the skills, abilities, desire, etc. to update and/or maintain these devices.” (GLEICHAUF: paragraph 0002) Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 3, 15, 16:
The combination of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. GLEICHAUF further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
cause execution of a smart contract of the distributed ledger to add the candidate data block to the distributed ledger in accordance with the distributed ledger consensus protocol.
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
generate the candidate data block in response to a transaction associated with the data capture event stream;
configure the candidate data block for the distributed ledger based on transaction information related to the transaction.
See at least paragraphs 0018-0020, 0025, 0037, and 0040.
Claims 4-6, 17-19:
The combination of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. NAVON further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
generate the candidate data block in response to a protection data event associated with the data capture event stream;
configure the candidate data block for the distributed ledger based on insurance information related to the protection data event.
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
generate the candidate data block in response to a rights data event associated with the data capture event stream;
configure the candidate data block for the distributed ledger based on mortgage information related to the rights data event.
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
configure the candidate data block for the distributed ledger with the property identifier.
See at least paragraphs 0025, 0045, 0073, 0076, 0080, 0091, and 0151. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of GLEICHAUF with the technique of NAVON because, “A wide variety of content or data in the form of stored signals, such as, for example, text files, images, audio files, video files, web pages, or the like is continually being acquired, identified, located, retrieved, collected, stored, viewed, communicated, etc. by electronic devices, which are becoming more ubiquitous in our increasingly inter-connected world. More recently, there appears to be a number of electronic devices in the market that include firmware and/or software from relatively smaller and/or ephemeral companies still new to the market, quick to create, quick to disappear, many in number. At times, these or like electronic devices are often “orphaned,” such as if artifact originators, such as entities (e.g., vendors, companies, etc.) that have developed firmware and/or software needed and/or useful to maintain and/or operate such devices, for example, go out of business or wither away to such an extent that they no longer have the skills, abilities, desire, etc. to update and/or maintain these devices.” (GLEICHAUF: paragraph 0002) Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 7:
The combination of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. GLEICHAUF further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
correlate the property identifier to a sequence of formatted data that uniquely identifies the asset;
configure the candidate data block for the distributed ledger based on the sequence of formatted data.
See at least paragraphs 0018-0020, 0025, 0037, 0040, 0144.
Claim 10:
The combination of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. GLEICHAUF further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
based on the candidate data block being added to the distributed ledger, render visualization data associated with the electronic data via an electronic interface of a computing device.
See at least paragraph 0003.
Claims 11-13:
The combination of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. GLEICHAUF further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
add a digital token to a digital wallet associated with the property identifier based on the candidate data block being added to the distributed ledger.
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
configure a value of the digital token based on accuracy of data included in the candidate data block.
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
configure a value of the digital token based on a timestamp associated with the candidate data block.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD and further in view of Applicant’s Own Admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claims 8, 9:
The combination of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD does not specifically disclose:
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
identify a change with respect to the data capture event stream based on an application program interface (API) call.
wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to: trigger an application program interface (API) call based on the candidate data block being added to the distributed ledger.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the computing arts to utilize APIs to interface between software components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD with the technique of utilizing an application program interface (API because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided
or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD and further in view of Examiner’s OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Claims 40, 41:
The combination of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD does not specifically disclose:
wherein the data processing technique comprises an optical character recognition (OCR) technique, and wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
process the portion of the electronic data related to the change based on the OCR technique.
wherein the data processing technique comprises a natural language processing technique, and wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to further cause the one or more processors to:
process the portion of the electronic data related to the change based on the natural language processing technique.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the machine learning arts to operate optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of GLEICHAUF/NAVON/FORD with the technique of OCR and natural language processing because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Alan Cohn et al. “Smart After All: Blockchain, Smart Contracts, Parametric Insurance, and Smart Energy Grids.” (April 2017). Retrieved online 07/27/2025. https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/smart-after-all-blockchain-smart-contracts-parametric-insurance-and-smart-energy-grids/GLTR-04-2017/
Relevancy: “A “blockchain,” as the name implies, is in its simplest terms a “chain” of previously-validated “blocks” of transactions that constitutes an immutable digital ledger and the distributed, resilient foundation for transfers of value. However, the newfound attention to blockchain has come with an increase in the attendant hype. Blockchain technology threatens to become the “next big thing” and all sorts of blockchain-based projects are being proposed. For instance, the Republic of Georgia has committed to using the Bitcoin network to validate property-related government transactions, and a private company in San Francisco has developed new pharmaceutical packaging technology that uses blockchain to reveal whether a package has been opened.” (Introduction)
Rateb Jabbar. “Blockchain for the Internet of Vehicles: A Decentralized IoT Solution for Vehicles Communication Using Ethereum.” (2020). Retrieved online 07/27/2025. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/14/3928
Relevancy: “The concept of smart cities has become prominent in modern metropolises due to the emergence of embedded and connected smart devices, systems, and technologies. They have enabled the connection of every “thing” to the Internet. Therefore, in the upcoming era of the Internet of Things, the Internet of Vehicles (IoV) will play a crucial role in newly developed smart cities. The IoV has the potential to solve various traffic and road safety problems effectively in order to prevent fatal crashes. However, a particular challenge in the IoV, especially in Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communications, is to ensure fast, secure transmission and accurate recording of the data. In order to overcome these challenges, this work is adapting Blockchain technology for real time application (RTA) to solve Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communications problems. Therefore, the main novelty of this paper is to develop a Blockchain-based IoT system in order to establish secure communication and create an entirely decentralized cloud computing platform. Moreover, the authors qualitatively tested the performance and resilience of the proposed system against common security attacks. Computational tests showed that the proposed solution solved the main challenges of Vehicle-to-X (V2X) communications such as security, centralization, and lack of privacy. In addition, it guaranteed an easy data exchange between different actors of intelligent transportation systems.” (ABSTRACT)
Lin William Cong et al. “Blockchain Disruption and Smart Contracts.” (September 26, 2017). Retrieved online 07/27/2025. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/events/2017/consumer-finance/fintech-2017/day-1/blockchain-disruption-smart-contracts.pdf
Relevancy: “Distributed ledger technology embodied in blockchains feature decentralized con sensus as well as low-cost, tamper-proof, and algorithmic executions, and consequently enlarge the contracting space through smart contracts. Meanwhile, the process of generating decentralized consensus which involves information distribution necessar ily alters the informational environment. We analyze how decentralization improves consensus effectiveness, and how the quintessential features of blockchain reshape in dustrial organization and the landscape of competition. Smart contracts can mitigate information asymmetry and deliver higher social welfare and consumer surplus through enhanced entry and competition, yet blockchains may also encourage collusion due to the irreducible distribution of information. In general, blockchains can sustain market equilibria with a larger range of economic outcomes. We further discuss anti-trust policy implications targeted to blockchain applications such as separating consensus record-keepers from users.” (ABSTRACT)
Foreign Art:
DESTEFANIS G et al. “Computing Method For Node Of Blockchain Network, Involves Sending Of Assembled Blocks Based On Mined Data From Blockchain Network According To Group Of Validated Transactions, To Storage Entity For Storing On Blockchain.” (WO 2018/224955 A1)
Relevancy: “The computing method involves receiving mined data from the blockchain network corresponding to a group of validated transactions. The blocks are assembled based on the mined data. The assembled blocks are sent to a storage entity for storing on a blockchain. The mined data is received from the blockchain network which has a block header corresponding to the validated transactions. The mined data has a transaction for a digital asset in exchange for assembling blocks based on the mined data and has a transaction for a digital asset in exchange for storage of the assembled blocks.” (ABSTRACT)
LEBEAU Z J et al. “Method For Providing Digital Content File Over Decentralized Distribution System Using Encrypted Peer-to-peer Network, Involves Transmitting Encrypted Digital Content File To Consumer Device, And Decrypting Encrypted Digital Content File.” (WO 2020/180754 A1)
Relevancy: “The method involves uploading a first layer encrypted content file to a host device of the decentralized distribution system (5500). The first layer encrypted digital content file is decrypted and the decrypted digital content file encrypted with third layer encryption using a public key of the host device. The third layer encrypted digital content file is stored on the peer device of the decentralized distribution system. A second temporary symmetric key is exchanged between the peer device of the decentralized distribution system and a consumer device outside the decentralized distribution system. The third layer encrypted digital content file is decrypted and encrypted with second layer encryption using the second temporary symmetric key at the peer device. The second layer encrypted digital content file is transmitted to the consumer device. The second layer encrypted digital content file is decrypted at the consumer device.” (ABSTRACT)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights